Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Bad HDR shot of the day

Reply
Thread Tools

Bad HDR shot of the day

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On 5/29/2011 10:57 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2011 21:33:40 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2011 9:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-29 17:52:11 -0700, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
>>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
>>>>> subject, you do it well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
>>>> expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
>>>> intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.
>>>
>>> Not to me he doesn't. No justification for comments required.
>>> Tony has his taste and opinions, and his comments on my work I find
>>> thought provoking. That can lead me in different directions. There are
>>> certainly times I could be aimed down a different path. Just another
>>> reason I enjoy the SI.
>>> It is also good to have a reasonably thick skin.
>>>
>>> ...and I won't add another shot of that tractor cluttering up all that
>>> open space.
>>>

>>
>> Yup! Almost all well intentioned comments some food for thinking,
>> especially when they disagree with the POV in my images.
>>
>> I don't want to start a war, but I may very well have a thicker skin
>> than you
>> Peter

>
> It's funny, but when someone says "That image is crap" about one of
> mine, I let it roll off and don't pay any attention. But, when they
> say "I like the image, but you should have..." and make a small
> correction, I bristle. I then start re-assessing the photo to force
> myself to view the correction as a neutral observer.
>


I will try to keep your sensitivity in mind when commenting on your
images. If I fail to do so, please accept my advance apologies.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On 5/29/2011 11:40 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2011 20:52:11 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
>>> subject, you do it well.
>>>

>>
>> I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
>> expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
>> intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.

>
> Its amazing what a comma can do .....
>
> " I have never seen any comment of yours that is intended to
> belittle, and that is not an honest opinion."
>
> Sorry, I couldn't resist.
>



I have only a limited supply of commas, and tend to hoard them.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On Mon, 30 May 2011 08:08:34 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 5/29/2011 10:57 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 21:33:40 -0400, PeterN
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2011 9:26 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>> On 2011-05-29 17:52:11 -0700, PeterN<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/29/2011 11:19 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I feel comfortable criticizing a photograph of yours because I am
>>>>>> complimentary of most of your shots. When you have an interesting
>>>>>> subject, you do it well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why you should feel any need to make an excuse for
>>>>> expressing an opinion. I have never seen any comment of yours that is
>>>>> intended to belittle and that is not an honest opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Not to me he doesn't. No justification for comments required.
>>>> Tony has his taste and opinions, and his comments on my work I find
>>>> thought provoking. That can lead me in different directions. There are
>>>> certainly times I could be aimed down a different path. Just another
>>>> reason I enjoy the SI.
>>>> It is also good to have a reasonably thick skin.
>>>>
>>>> ...and I won't add another shot of that tractor cluttering up all that
>>>> open space.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup! Almost all well intentioned comments some food for thinking,
>>> especially when they disagree with the POV in my images.
>>>
>>> I don't want to start a war, but I may very well have a thicker skin
>>> than you
>>> Peter

>>
>> It's funny, but when someone says "That image is crap" about one of
>> mine, I let it roll off and don't pay any attention. But, when they
>> say "I like the image, but you should have..." and make a small
>> correction, I bristle. I then start re-assessing the photo to force
>> myself to view the correction as a neutral observer.
>>

>
>I will try to keep your sensitivity in mind when commenting on your
>images. If I fail to do so, please accept my advance apologies.


I will try not to pout.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On May 29, 10:47*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 28, 10:37*am, "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> RichA wrote:
> >>> On May 27, 3:33*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

> > :
> >>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> >>http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/phot...enham-badlands....

>
> >>>> WTF!
> >>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
> >>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?

>
> >>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
> >>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
> >>>> 'splainin' to do.

>
> >>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
> >>> power towers with large format gear. *But the horrifying thing about
> >>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
> >>> seeing it show up in ads. *Truly distressing.

>
> >> It is if it is used "for the sake of". *However, there are situations
> >> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
> >> other method will produce the result needed. *

>
> > I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
> > mostly the silly, garish stuff.

>
> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck


To me, when I see a glow coming off something in the scene, it reminds
me of a bad dodge job in printing old silver prints. Such things
would never have been accepted in that medium, but they seem to be in
digital.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-30-2011
On 5/30/2011 11:40 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-05-30 07:43:14 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On May 29, 10:47 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-29 07:16:53 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 28, 10:37 am, "MC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>>> On May 27, 3:33 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wro

>> te
>>>> :
>>>>>>> On 2011-05-27 12:17:13 -0700, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>>>> http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/phot...enham-badlands..
>>>>>

>> .
>>>
>>>>>>> WTF!
>>>>>>> 18 shot x 3 exposure? What kind of HDR is that supposed to be?
>>>>>>> This is an "aspiring professional photographer?
>>>
>>>>>>> ...and he works at Henry's in Toronto!
>>>>>>> Rich, it is time for you to pay them a visit, this guy has some
>>>>>>> 'splainin' to do.
>>>
>>>>>> There was one guy from Henry's who took some interesting shots of
>>>>>> power towers with large format gear. But the horrifying thing abou

>> t
>>>>>> gross HDR is that it has leaked into the professional realm, I'm
>>>>>> seeing it show up in ads. Truly distressing.
>>>
>>>>> It is if it is used "for the sake of". However, there are situation

>> s
>>>>> when a genuine need for HDR processing is required and absolutely no
>>>>> other method will produce the result needed.
>>>
>>>> I keep hearing that. Yet what I see in the magazines and such is
>>>> mostly the silly, garish stuff.
>>>
>>> Sometimes it doesn't have to be too garish.
>>> ...and it is still fun to screw around with.
>>> Here is a "0" shot compared with a 3 exposure HDR using NIK HDR Efex
>>> Pro. It is all a matter of taste, and somebody is going to say they
>>> prefer the original with deep shadows, and I should have fixed it in
>>> camera, and all the usual stuff, but there it is.
>>> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YosV-HDR-comp.jpg>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck

>>
>> To me, when I see a glow coming off something in the scene, it reminds
>> me of a bad dodge job in printing old silver prints. Such things
>> would never have been accepted in that medium, but they seem to be in
>> digital.

>
> One of the areas of over processing with HDR which can be avoided, is
> the "Halo" effect in areas of strong contrast and edges. This can be
> very disturbing especially around leaves, tree branches, and horizon
> boundaries.
> With HDR, I think it is a case of using the right SW, and making the
> appropriate adjustments with moderation. This is another one of those
> times when more is not better.


You can also use one of the original images to cut down the halo effect.
Just put it on top of the HDR image and use a combination of blending,
opacity and masking. Then, do your sharpening on the luminosity channel
in LAB mode.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-01-2011
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Agreed. There is a place for HDR, and results can be very effective,
> especially when it comes to artistic interpretation, and it can be used
> well in advertising copy. It does not have a place in photojournalism.


Do gradient filters also not have a place in photojournalism?

I ask because they also map higher contrast to lower contrast ...

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-02-2011
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> On 2011-06-01 11:45:40 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg


>> Do gradient filters also not have a place in photojournalism?
>> I ask because they also map higher contrast to lower contrast ...


> Ok! Ok! All the tools available to any photographer are fair for any
> photographic purpose.


It's not the tools that are evil. It's how you use them ...

> That said a gradient filter used in circumstances the photographer
> believes he/she is going to need it, seems far more appropriate for a
> press/sports/photojournalist than an HDR capture, let's say at a press
> conference, sports event, or conflict photojournalism in the field.


> ...but who knows I guess sometimes HDR might even work well even then,
> if you can get everybody to stop moving for the 3 to 7 exposures.


Hey, they did conflict photojournalism with plates and minute
long exposures ... showing battlefields and after-action
shots (some of them staged)

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011
On May 29, 4:39*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Here is one with a little rural decay.
> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>


Nice one.
HDR shots work best on things that fall apart, brings in a lot of
detail.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011
"DanP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On May 29, 4:39 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is one with a little rural decay.
>> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>

>
> Nice one.
> HDR shots work best on things that fall apart, brings in a lot of
> detail.
>
> DanP


The HDR has destroyed the main subject of the image being the tractor by
introducing artificial detail in the sky, and destroyed the distant
appearance of the distant hills. HDR has ruined that photo, at least foe
me.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2011
On 6/8/2011 6:52 AM, David J Taylor wrote:
> "DanP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On May 29, 4:39 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is one with a little rural decay.
>>> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Carrizo-HDR-Comp.jpg>

>>
>> Nice one.
>> HDR shots work best on things that fall apart, brings in a lot of
>> detail.
>>
>> DanP

>
> The HDR has destroyed the main subject of the image being the tractor by
> introducing artificial detail in the sky, and destroyed the distant
> appearance of the distant hills. HDR has ruined that photo, at least foe
> me.
>


It allows you to see that details that were there, but blocked. To my
eye the image appears over sharpened, with the color nuances blocked.
Whether HDR is appropriate for any particular image is purely a matter
of taste.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Now.day and day(now) returning the wrong day! Andy ASP .Net 1 11-06-2008 12:20 PM
Shot to shot speed Tass Digital Photography 2 02-13-2006 07:52 PM
Faster SD card cuts shot-to-shot time bk Digital Photography 2 09-11-2004 04:11 AM
bad bad day- monitor problem cowboyz NZ Computing 12 12-07-2003 08:16 AM
Sky from shot 1 with landscape from shot 2 John Russell Digital Photography 0 08-04-2003 07:08 AM



Advertisments